Thursday, May 26, 2022

Proposal: Jump in the jam jar, gonna get straight

Cannot reach quorum with 6 AGAINST votes. Josh

Adminned at 28 May 2022 07:37:53 UTC

The important bit; if tl;dr, just read this section:

Add the following to the end of the rule Guardians:

If a Guardian has carried out an action that has resulted in them having tracked gamestate information in the current dynasty then they may be said to be present in the current dynasty. If a dynasty has gamestate information that is privately tracked then it is the responsibility of the Oracle to maintain a publicly tracked list of Guardians that are present in the current dynasty.

Repeal the rule Idle Guardians.

An enabling change on proposal resolution, also a bit important but if you’re already AGAINST then it won’t change your mind:

In the rule Votes, change “A Votable Matter is Popular if any of the following are true:” and all subsequent text in the rule to read:

A Votable Matter is Popular if it has been open for voting for at least 36 hours, it has more than 1 valid Vote cast on it, and more valid Votes cast on it are FOR than are AGAINST. A Votable Matter is Unpopular if it has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and it is not Popular.

In the rule Resolution of Proposals, remove the text “It has been open for voting for at least 12 hours.”

In the rule Victory and Ascension, add the following immediately after the first sentence of the second paragraph:

A Guardian’s Vote on a DoV is only Valid if that Guardian is present in the current dynasty.

In the same rule, change the terms under which a DoV can be enacted to read as follows:

* It has a number of FOR Votes greater than 2/3rds of the number of present Guardians, it has been open for at least 12 hours, and either the Oracle has Voted FOR it or it has no AGAINST Votes.
* It has a number of FOR Votes greater than 2/3rds of the number of present Guardians, and it has been open for at least 24 hours.

In the same rule, change “A Pending DoV may be Failed by any Admin if any of the following are true:” and the subsequent bulleted list to read:

A Pending DoV may be Failed by any Admin if after 24 hours it cannot otherwise be enacted.

Tiding up, few substantial changes:

In the rules Dormancy [Active], Imperial Deferentials [Active], Mantle Limitations [Inactive] [Rare], and Alliances [Inactive] [Rare], change any instance of the term “Guardian” to “present Guardian”, and “Guardians” to “present Guardians”. Add the following to the end of the rule Dynastic Tracking [Active]:

Unless otherwise stated, whenever a dynastic rule requires that information be publicly tracked for all Guardians, only information for present Guardians needs to be tracked.

In No Collaboration [Inactive] [Rare], change “Idle Guardians (or people who are not yet Guardians) also face the same restrictions if they intend to become an active Guardian during the course of the dynasty.” to:

Non-present Guardians face the same restrictions if they intend to become present during the course of the dynasty.

Then in every other sentence in that rule change “Guardian” to “present Guardian”, or “Guardians” to “present Guardians”.

In the Appendix, change “it is referring to a Quorum of all Guardians” to “it is referring to a Quorum of all present Guardians”.

In the rule Official Posts, change “A New Guardian is defined as a Guardian who has been a Guardian for fewer than seven days or a Guardian that has unidled in the past seven days after being idle for at least 3 months.” to read:

A New Guardian is defined as a Guardian who has been a Guardian for fewer than seven days or a Guardian that has become present in the past seven days after being not present for at least 6 months.

Remove the following from the rule Things that a mentor must do:

If possible, give their mentee a nudge if it appears that they are at risk of becoming Idle;
If they themselves go idle, communicate with their mentee to either continue to support them as an idle Guardian or arrange a handover to another mentor if requested.

Remove “Whenever an Atlantean is unidled, they are removed from the Queue and Path (if present in either) and then added to the end of the Path.” from the rule The Queue.

In another nomic we basically structured things such that you were a player if you did the things that a player did, and proposals were just resolved based on the votes cast on them, and it was remarkably freeing! There are pros and cons to this so I offer it up as a suggestion. The big pros I think are that it lets players who are not involved in the dynastic game have a say on core proposals, and that active-idlers become less of a drag on the game; the big cons are the lack of signposts around people entering or leaving the dynastic game, but I suspect that new ways of working would emerge around that.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

26-05-2022 11:48:44 UTC

The main other changes I see here are that no votable matter - not even a simple CfJ that was unanimous among present players? - could ever enact in under 36 hours; that it would become possible to enact Core changes with only a couple of votes in favour; and that Dormancy will only really activate when a dynasty is down to a single non-Emperor one player. (In fact, Dormancy may fire too early at the start of a dynasty when nobody is yet considered to be present.)

Per initial feedback on Discord, I think it may do some good to automate idleness into a more nuanced roster of active players. But defining active players as “have taken one action ever” is only a step towards that, and to me feels like a move into the dark. I was a player in PodNomic, and I did feel a bit lost not knowing who was actually playing in any given week; whose ears I had to pitch my proposals to, and who might react to any game moves I made.

The 36-hour live-or-die timeout feels a bit of a knife edge to make the new default. I’m not sure what removing a big reason to vote early would do to the voting process, but the timeout doesn’t feel great in combination with the lowered bar to player entry, where a contentious proposal could suddenly be swung by a couple of inactive players being asked to visit a link and click a voting icon.

Ultimately I think it comes down to the squeaky door thing, for me: entering and leaving any game should be a big deal, particularly one that’s divided into rounds. Players should know who is and isn’t at the table, and there should be a bit of a social/mechanical speed bump to an inactive player rejoining the game to take a single action. I do appreciate that our current ruleset and culture isn’t perfect for that either, though.

Josh: he/him

26-05-2022 12:07:44 UTC

I see slowing the essential nature of the game down as a feature of this idea, not a bug.

(Building in extra validation stages for popularity would be trivial, and in the unlikely world where this proposal gained popularity and passed I would expect there to be a lengthy period of trying stuff around timing out; this establishes a baseline, not a fully articulated to-be status quo.)

Dormancy is a fair tag and would need some thought on how to handle.

Personally, I think that the more veiled hand of not knowing who is going to be important to your game this week is quite interesting; you have to keep an eye on movements more, and tap into some of those softer skills around paying attention to who’s actually playing and who’s bumping along. But in some ways this is actually just enshrining a status quo; we currently have 12 active players, how many of them are serious competitors to win? As things stand I find myself having to pop up occasional cage-rattling proposals to see who’s actually paying attention; I don’t see this proposal as actually changing that incentive all that much.

Trapdoorspyder:

26-05-2022 21:22:36 UTC

against I personally think that there too many potential issues with this system to completely overhaul the rules on the first draft. However, I do also see the potential benefits of a system such as this one, and might be willing to reconsider on future attempts at this.

Raven1207: he/him

26-05-2022 23:56:16 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

27-05-2022 09:10:36 UTC

I think BlogNomic has found a relatively successful niche in terms of its mood and pace, and shifting it to a slower, more opaque format where idle players often chip in to vote on something or assist a scam would take it away from that, although I’m not sure how far.

against

wdtefv: hu/hum

27-05-2022 09:34:35 UTC

against

Jumble:

27-05-2022 12:18:02 UTC

against

Gozherd:

27-05-2022 20:44:01 UTC

imperial